They are going to produce 20 films and TV series in Mexico annually, so 80 total over 4 years, at an average cost of $12.5 million per piece of content. The same production in the USA would easily run 10x that, maybe more. No brainer to move more production overseas.
> No, you can't get Mexico to stand in for the US in most scenarios
I'd disagree. A lot of CDMX, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Leon looks like a similar if slightly dated version of LA, San Jose, or flatland parts of SF and Oakland - sort of like a 1980s or 1990s kind of aesthetic because of Mexico's economic boom back then.
But this is absolutely about Spanish language content for the Hispanoblante world.
Mexico was the original "China". China began booming in the 2000s because Mexico became expensive so a lot of low margins manufacturing left Tijuana and Guadalajara for Tianjin and Guangzhou [0], the same way how you now see manufacturing leaving China for cost reasons having a similar economic impact/shock [1].
It's telling that China only caught up with Mexico's GDP per Capita and HDI around 2019-20, and economic issues similar to those in Mexico in the 2000s (excluding the drug war related ones) began manifesting in China as well.
For example, NPR [2], NYT [3][4], and BBC [5] reports from the early 2000s about Mexico are pretty similar to those you'd hear about China today.
Or even Toronto. I was surprised to learn Suits was filmed there, despite depicting NYC.
That said, I'm not sure Netflix cares from that regard. They've been pushing me increasingly foreign content that I don't particularly care for, because it's usually dubbed horribly or not at all.
I'm of course not against it existing in their library, but I'd have thought their recommendation engine would realize I'm not at all interested in it by now.
I think the different countries pushing Netflix to make local content has really paid off. Some real good stuff has come out. Like DARK from Germany. Casa de Papel from Spain (though they dragged it out too long). Squid Game from Korea. It's become a lot better since it isn't just Hollywood stuff.
Here in mainland Europe we're more open to content from all kinds of places. I think part of it is because we're used to not being able to understand every language. There's so many here we can never speak them all. Thus subs or dubbing are common things and don't ruin the immersion for us. In English speaking countries (even in Europe) those are often considered weird, alternative or "arthouse".
That's a fair point. As an American, we kinda just expect English by the default. But for the rare movie or show worth watching, I can set that aside. I loved Squid Game. Shame they never made a second season(/s, don't remind me!)
That said most of the time I have the TV on I'm doing something else, and watch/listen in passing, so audio is really important. The dubbing on most movies is so, so bad. 60 year old gruff men sounding like a kid, everyone having the same weird enthusiastic tone, etc. The worst is the distancing, everyone sounds like they're talking directly into a mic despite where the camera is.
I really wish they'd invest more into the dubbing process, a well dubbed movie or show is completely watchable to me. And given the growing corpus of foreign content, I think it's a necessity. It's just so rare I usually don't even bother trying anymore.
Yeah that's why I prefer subtitles. Dubs are usually very substandard. Though I think AI might change that soon.
Some people find subtitles distracting but where I grew up all foreign content had them (including all English content) and they're just natural to me. I prefer this over dubbing because it never sounds as good as the original voice track.
And keeping the original voice track keeps the original feeling - if something is Japanese it should also sound Japanese to properly immerse you in it, right? But if the TV just runs in the background it doesn't even matter what is running, you won't actually pay attention, don't actually need immersion, so any garbage will do.
The streamers were forced by law [0] to run European productions, so they had to. However the way they do it varies wildly. I appreciate the way Netflix does it - proper subtitles, and absolutely loathe the garbage dubbing Amazon Prime prefers. But to each their own right? And for the content itself, I also find refreshing to watch something less infested with the usual US common places (barfing in comedies, Texans in action flicks...) and maybe also with a closer-to-home flair and themes, so for me as a consumer it's a definite win.
> In English speaking countries (even in Europe) those are often considered weird, alternative or "arthouse".
It's not that dubbing can generally be considered weird in a particular culture, it's that it's just really shitty in English. I'm fluent in English and French. I'd also hardly had any experience with dubbed content at all when I started sampling Netflix's foreign offering. When I started, I picked English. It was really off-putting. I was ready to rule out dubbing altogether, then on a whim I tried the French (from France) dubbing and the difference is incredible. So, I think some countries just have more experience doing this kind of work. Americans don't seem to have it, aside from animation that is.
I think you missed a point. It might be harder to sell Americans on films shot in Mexico because the filming location will not pass as US. So they likely cannot move projects targeting US audiences to Mexico.
However, films targeting Latin + South America audiences might do really well if filmed in Mexico. So the expansion is probably mostly about catering to that market.
To be honest, I don't envy Netflix's position. They release a show, it's culturally relevant for 2-8 weeks, and then they have to release another show to keep the subscriptions active. Traditional television has weekly releases that maintained relevance longer. Movies generate much more revenue per hour on content in theaters, and have long term licensing revenue. Their P/E ratio is higher than other content companies that offer similar streaming services, so shareholders expect revenue growth but their developed world marketshare doesn't have room for growth. So now they are going after new audiences, but they are targeting markets where their subscription fees are way lower, and they'll be on the same hamster wheel of keeping audiences engaged.
This is pretty simplistic though considering that a lot of TV work can be shot indoors on sound stages and outdoor shots where a recognizably American settings are needed can be shot in the US. There's no reason at all that a show needs to be filmed entirely in one location.
I live in Prague and there's a huge movie industry with lots of American movies being shot on sound stages here. To give one example off the top of my head, all of the Narnia movies were shot here.
How about they planning to sell those productions outside the US? Even for Netflix, not everybody is American and has those requirements. I'm watching a Senegalese police flick so I actually expect and appreciate it happening in Dakar - it's an important part of its world building.
I would expect them to build and staff studios and soundstages down there. Location shooting is expensive wherever you go - this is about getting away from US labor and other costs. They're not the only ones doing it either.
The article is Netflix is making product X. OP replies "big day for people who make tools to produce product Y". What's the joke?
If Netflix were making English language/targeted content filmed in Mexico the the sepia joke makes sense to me, but not for Spanish targeted. What am I missing?
If it means anything, this whole exchange, both in the humor of it and the fantastic display of humanity at the end of it, made me laugh, and then smile.
Y'all need to get the rights to Chespirito and Chavo Del Ocho on Netflix and stream dat shit to Canada yo! Then I can enjoy my tamales and orchata watching dat shit!
More of a trope about the styling and colour palatte of now classic films set in Mexican territories (but often filmed elsewhere):
Spaghetti westerns were a series of western films pioneered by Sergio Leone in the 70’s mostly starring Clint Eastwood. They have a very specific style to them. Mostly shot on anamorphic widescreen, they developed a language using editing and framing for confrontations between the gunslingers as well as using and updating Akira Kurosawa’s style. A lot of them are straight up remakes of Kurosawa films (A fistful of dollars is Yojimbo, Magnificent 7 is 7 samurai).
The films had a bit of a sepia look to them but that mostly came from the art direction and the wide open desert spaces they shot at. They would use a handful of shots from the west here and there but most of them were actually shot in southern Spain with Italian and Spanish crews.
Widescreen aspect ratio, tight closeups (chin to eyebrows), quick cuts timed to the music (provided by the great Enio Moricone).
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is seen as the masterpiece of the series (known as the man with no name series). Another major one is Once Upon a Time in the West. Tareantino is heavily influenced by this stayle and pays direct homage to him on both Kill Bill Vol 2 and Hateful 8. This might be able to give you a slightly more modernized rendition of Leone’s style.
Eh... just watch Breaking Bad and pay attention to all the scenes taking place in Mexico. You'll get the point. It hits as hard as the green tint in the Matrix movies when they are in the Matrix. They might as well all be Simpsons characters.
...So, do they need any American software engineers to work in Mexico who want to spend about four years outside of the United States for reasons that will not be enumerated. Asking for a friend.
Entry-level total comp at Google Mexico is about 80k USD, which is comparable to 180k in local purchasing power.
[Edit] on second glance, my original datapoint for Google was questionable, but it looks like Lyft/Amazon definitely gives offers in the 50k-70k USD range.
If that number is even real, so few people are making it that it's not even worth mentioning.
Search "sueldo ingeniero Google Mexico" and you see wages like $30k USD which is already +$10k over the Mexico average for software, so way more realistic.
This is the absolute top of the top, domestic tech in Mexico pays pretty poorly. Google (as of last year) also let people transfer from high COL to lower COL, reduce their base, but keep the original RSU contract, which will probably skew reported compensation.
It's the same in all of Europe. You need to work for international big-tech to make decent money, which is also very competitive in terms of job applications. Domestic SW shops pay shit.
That salary is actually below the minimum income for permanent residency (but above the 4 yr temporary residency threshold). If you want to stay beyond 4 years, you'll need to either pony up for a sufficiently expensive house or show $300k usd in a bank account over the past year.
Those properties are beautiful! I can get a beachfront villa for practically nothing. In Canada something that close to the water would be several million dollars despite not even having a tropical climate.
What is Mexico's visa policy w.r.t. NAFTA/CUSMA professionals? Can I just get in temporarily as a software engineer akin to TN-1 in the USA?
That’s really interesting to think about. I had seen a list of the most expensive streets and Polanco is home to one of those (the commercial Avenida Presidente Masaryk) and Atherton is on the list too (the residential Walsh Road).
But that's also because the richest people aren't so affected by low cost of living. Prices temd to be based on what people can afford. And those neighbourhoods tend to be for the top 0.1%
The thing with purchasing power is that it doesn't apply to everything. In particular foreign goods.
So while low cost of living countries offset their low wages with cheaper housing, food and local services, imported stuff still costs the same and is relatively expensive as a result. Basically in those countries it really sucks to buy a computer, camera, even cars.
I spent two weeks in Juarez a few years ago for my wife's visa stuff. The hotel was pretty cheap, the food was pretty cheap (and delicious!), but I was surprised to see that an Xbox was actually more expensive than it was in NYC.
It makes enough sense, Microsoft isn't a charity, they're selling the console at a fairly competitive price already in the US, it's not going going to magically get cheaper just because it crossed a border, but it was still surprising to see that.
That makes sense, and not really theoretical; it's pretty easy to buy Blu-rays and DVDs from foreign markets, and they're often considerably cheaper than their American versions.
They of course are region encoded, but I suspect nearly anyone who frequents Hacker News knows how to get around that.
My wife is a Mexican immigrant. I was joking a bit, but not completely, I do have to think about the possibility that this stupid administration decides to ramp up their deportation efforts even more.
US drones/aircraft have been flying over Mexico for ~15yrs and CIA also started flying them there under Biden admin at the request of Mexican gov. I'm skeptical Mexico would start using offensive drones though, they prefer helicopters for operations.
Not without Mexico's consent. Unless you think they would commit an act a war against Mexico... to fight cartels or something? Even Obama's drone strikes in Yemen was under approval of the Yemen gov, it's a very serious thing to do.
> During Mr Obama's eight years in office, 1,878 drone strikes were carried out, according to researchers. Since Mr Trump was elected in 2016, there have been 2,243 drone strikes. The Republican president has also made some of the operations, the ones outside of war zones, more secretive. As a result, things have different today: under Mr Trump, there are more drone strikes - and less transparency.
> Civilian deaths skyrocketed in Afghanistan under President Donald Trump, whose administration relaxed the rules of engagement for airstrikes in 2017, according to a new study from the Costs of War Project at Brown University.
> Airstrikes killed 700 civilians in Afghanistan in 2019 alone, more than any other year since the early days of the war in 2002, according to the study. "There were more weapons dropped from the air in 2018 and 2019 than at the height of US presence in Afghanistan in 2011," the report stated.
So by "It matters what you hit, not how much" you actually meant "it matters how publicly covered by the American media (which I also call 'fake news' when they do)", not "it matters what you hit"?
I'm sure the thousands of civilians killed by Trump's strikes are grateful they didn't make the New York Times.
